International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 4, No. 7; May 2014 Paradigm Shift in Afghanistan: A Study of the “Af-Pak Strategy” of the United States of America Mazhar Abbas Khan M. Phil Scholar Department of Political Science & International Relations Government College University Faisalabad Abdul Basit Khan Lecturer Department of Political Science & International Relations Government College University Faisalabad Ahmad Waqas Makhdoom M. Phil Scholar Department of Political Science & International Relations Government College University Faisalabad Abstract Because of the policy botch and lack of clear planning, the Bush government in United States (US) left the Afghanistan–Pakistan boundary in skirmish. Meanwhile, the Taliban insurgency arose as a menace for regional safety from Kabul to Islamabad. The succeeding Obama government in US twisted the chance to recalibrate policy towards Afghanistan to suppress the ferocity of violence. In 2009, a new approach labeled as “Af-Pak Strategy” was exposed to reconfigure US commitment wherein the strategy makers interpret the region as one geo-political unit. This means the conflation of two distinct but equivalent conflicts – the insurgency in Afghanistan and belligerency in Pakistan – into one existential threat. The present study intends to explore the details and implications of the said strategy. Introducing the term “Af-Pak” Af-Pak coinage is used for US foreign policy loops to label Afghanistan and Pakistan as one area of operation. Michael Quinion stated that this stint initiated in newspapers in February, 2009 (Quinion, April 16, 2009), however, the expression was coined and promoted by Richard Holbrooke, the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan appointed by Obama government. (Safire, April 23, 2009) In March 2009, Holbrooke clarified the incentives behind this terminology. He said that they frequently call the problem “Af-Pak” meaning Afghanistan and Pakistan which was an effort to specify that there was a single area of conflict, spanning an imprecise boundary, the Durand Line, where NATO and other militaries were capable to operate. On its eastern side, there is independent and sovereign land of Pakistan. However, the international terrorist crusade is also positioned here. (Quinion, April16, 2009) In the same year, President of Pakistan, General (r) Pervez Musharraf evaluated the phrase during a talk with Der Spiegel saying that he was entirely against the term Af-Pak and did not like the word due to two reasons: firstly, the strategy set Pakistan on identical level with Afghanistan which was not at all because Afghanistan had no administration and was totally subverted but the same was not the case with Pakistan. Secondly, India was the sole factor involved in the entire game. Pakistan had Kashmir skirmish devoid of which fanatical fundamentalists like Lashkar-e-Taiba would not survive. (Spiegel, 2009) Holbrooke told in a press conference that the word 'Af- Pak ' was not intended to degrade Pakistan but a 'bureaucratic shorthand' envisioned to transport the position in the border zones on two sides as one might not be settled devoid of second one. (The Hindu (Chennai, India), May 6, 2009). 244 © Center for Promoting Ideas, USA www.ijhssnet.com The term attracted great media coverage because of its approved use by the Obama administration. Af-Pak Strategy "As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people…We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So, I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future…To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy”. (Obama’s speech, March 27, 2009) There, President Obama also outlined the shift in the US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He mentioned that the primacy of his government was to formulate the warfare in Afghanistan. He assured to upsurge the US forces in Afghanistan to assure victory in the combat. He condemned the role of Bush administration to deal the worsening situation in Af-Pak region. He said that the role of Bush administration in tribal areas of Pakistan turned the region into a safe sanctuary for al-Qaeda and its terrorist partners, powering afghan rebellion and menacing international terrorism. For him, Afghanistan and Pakistan were two centers of same war against international terrorism carried out by al-Qaeda and its terrorist cronies. So, the war in Afghanistan could not meet with success without dealing with terrorism in Pakistan.(Ibid) President Obama appointed Richard Holbrooke as his envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan who assumed his office on January 20, 2009.On 10th February 2009, while interacting with Interagency Policy Group presided by Bruce Riedel, he appraised US policy towards Af-Pak region. While the Group produced its analysis of US policies towards Af-Pak region, President Obama chalked out fresh US policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan in his most important speech of27th March 2009. On the same day, a White Paper was also issued by Interagency Policy Group which contained basic rudiments of this strategy. (Ahmed, 2010, p. 41) The Af-Pak strategy elaborated the necessary structure of the Obama administration’s successive policy enterprises about Afghanistan and Pakistan with re-evaluation of Afghan war plan. It bade for a more dedicated US attitude to fight against worldwide terrorism launched by al-Qaeda tramping “a middle path between a narrow counter terror mission and a much more ambitious nation building agenda”.(Markey, 2009, p. 2) Main Characteristics of the Af-Pak Strategy (I)-The Af-Pak strategy moved the center of war from Iraq to Af-Pak region. It treated both Afghanistan and Pakistan like two dissimilar states but single theatre of war. The main reason behind the strategy was that Pakistan was linked with Afghanistan through its tribal parts. Obama government supposed these areas to be a safe place for al-Qaeda including its militant cronies. It driven the Afghan war and posed a threat in favor of universal terrorism. In that view, the two countries had to face the common enemies. If these enemies were not crushed pre- dominantly, the terrorism could not be eradicated from the world positively. That insurgency in Afghanistan nourished insecurity in Pakistan. Without more operative plans against these clusters in Pakistan, Afghanistan will face enduring uncertainty. (Interagency Policy Group Report, 2009, p. 1) Pakistan was the main focus of that Af-Pak strategy. US had also increased the economic and military support to Pakistan in order to enhance its capability against war on terror. Moreover, it aspired to involve Afghanistan and Pakistan in an innovative trilateral outline at the uppermost level. The US planned to improve intelligence and military coordination alongside the border and concentrated on common subjects like trade, energy productions and economic development. (II)-The Af-Pak strategy was grounded on US strategic objective; to disrupt, dismantle and crush al-Qaeda in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan and to avert their re-occurrence to any state in future. (Obama’s speech, March 27, 2009) The strategy of the Bush administration towards the region was originally based on “War against Terrorism”. It was something like incorporating western-style democratic system in Afghanistan by overpowering the Taliban, hostile Afghans or conducting a war against Muslims. So, it was also clarified that US presence in the region was not to exploit the vast oil and gas reserves of Central Asia but it was declared that after the eradication of terrorist elements in the region, the US would leave the area as soon as possible. 245 International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 4, No. 7; May 2014 Another gauge of the US and NATO intent of not to stopover longer in the region was that the current policy guidelines were stressing on involving adjoining countries in the Afghan peace process. The Obama Government and UN wanted to establish fresh Contact Group for Afghanistan including Pakistan. They hoped that it would collectively take all stakeholders on-board who must had interests in the safety of region, comprising Central Asian Republics, the Gulf States including Iran, Russia, India and China. (Ahmed, 2010, p. 42) (III)-The Af-Pak strategy was also in favor of a resolution with local Taliban factions including militants who were prepared to surrender and separate themselves from al-Qaeda. According to Obama “there is an uncompromising core of the Taliban”. They must be treated with power and be overpowered. But those who had started fighting just due to pressure or for financial problems had choice to pick a different track.” (Obama’s speech, March 27, 2009) While instigating this section of the Af-Pak strategy, President Obama signed the Defense Bill on 28th October 2009 which enclosed a new facility whereby US acceded to compensate Taliban troops who had initiated the insurgence activities for mostly defense of their own towns and villages. (Ahmed, 2010, p. 42) (IV)-The Af-Pak strategy displayed an enduring US promise to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the shape of significant funds provision for national development schemes in both states. In his speech of 27th March 2009, Obama proclaimed “to advance security, opportunity and justice, not only in Kabul, but from grass root level to upper level in the provinces, all the way through, placing a considerable enhance in our civilians on earth, and also with the aid of civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations”. (Obama’s speech, March 27, 2009) In succeeding months, the Obama government sustained to dispatch US civilian specialists to Afghanistan.